Whether, under this Court's precedent in Miller-El. v. GockreU. 537 U.S. 322 (2003) and buck v. Davis, 137 S.Ct. 759 (2017), it is sufficient for purposes of obtaining a certificate of Appeal.abil.ity, under 28 U.S.C. §2253(c)(2), that an appl.icant make a showing that: "reasonabl.e jurists coul.d debate" whether the petition states a "valid c].aim of a constitutional. right;" that is whether a reasonable jurist could debate whether (or, for that matter agree that) the petition shou].d have been resol.ved in a different manner, or that issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further, in order to make a "substantial. showing of the denial. of a constitutional. right"?

Whether, in the denial. of a Certificate of Appeal.ability by the U.S. Court of Appeal.s, it is necessary that the Court give a statement of reasons suficient that a l.itigant understand the deficiencies in the application, or whether the simpl.e c].aim that, appellant has not made a "substantial. showing of the denial. of a cons titutiO.naii: right," is a11 that is necessary, even when, as to each cl.aim bel.ow, the appl.icant has made a showing that "jurists of reason coul.d debate whether the petition shoul.d have been resol.ved.in a different manner"?

Whether, under this Court's precedent in Miller-El v. Cockrell and Buck v. Davis, it is sufficient for obtaining a Certificate of Appealability under 28 U.S.C. §2253(c)(2) that an applicant make a showing that reasonable jurists could debate whether the petition states a valid claim of a constitutional right